Delhi High Court
Smt. Meenu Chopra vs Shri Deepak Chopra on 23 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR2002DELHI131, II(2001)DMC264, 2001(59)DRJ761, AIR 2002 DELHI 131, (2001) 4 RECCIVR 656, (2001) 2 DMC 264, (2001) 59 DRJ 761, (2002) 1 CIVILCOURTC 239, (2001) 2 HINDULR 467, (2002) 1 MARRILJ 224, (2001) MATLR 598, (2002) 1 CIVLJ 465, (2001) 92 DLT 873
Author: A.K. Sikri
Bench: A.K. Sikri
ORDER A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance as an 'indigent person' under the provisions of Order XXXIII read with Section 151 CPC. The respondent has not appeared despite service and accordingly by order dated 8th March, 2001 he was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner was permitted to file affidavit disclosing the assets in her possession. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that petitioner is not in possession of sufficient means to enable her to pay Court Fee and in fact she does not own any movable and immovable property. In view of these averments made on affidavit and there being no rebuttal or opposition, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the Court Fee in the instant case. The prayer to sue as an 'indigent person' is allowed.
2. I.A. No.1646/2001 stands disposed of.
3. Let this I.P.A. be registered as a suit by the Registry.
I.A.1645/2001.
4. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim maintenance. It is specifically averred in the petition that the defendant, husband of the plaintiff, is earning not less than Rs. 2.00 lacs per month. Particulars of the employment of the defendant are given in Para-27 of the petition. Since defendant has chosen to remain absent, no reply is filed controverting these allegations. It would be significant to note at this stage that plaintiff had, before filing this petition, sent legal notice dated June 20, 2000 demanding maintenance from the defendant. In that notice plaintiff had demanded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per month. The defendant had given reply dated 10th July, 2000 to this notice. A perusal of this reply shows that the defendant while refuting the claim of the plaintiff to get the maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month alleged that amount of maintenance was dependent on the status of the parties and reasonable wants of the claimant. It is further alleged that plaintiff's father at the time of his retirement earned only Rs. 3,000/-p.m. and, therefore, demand for maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/p.m. was most amusing. This stand of the defendant is clear from the following portion of the aforesaid reply:
"I notice that you have been instructed by your client to demand Rs.20,000 per month w.e.f. January 1998. I wish to draw your attention to the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and =Maintenance Act, 1956 which states that the amount of maintenance is dependent on the status of parties and the reasonable wants of the claimant. As far status goes I have already spelled out above what kind of a status Mr. Virmani and his daughter have. A person whose father at the time of his retirement earned only Rs. 3,000 is demanding maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month is most amusing. Obviously their parasitical intention is to fleece me out my hard-earned income so that these people can live a life of debauchery. I am truly amazed at the demand".
5. I am also amused. I am also amazed. At the stand taken by the defendant. Significantly in this reply defendant has not stated that demand for Rs.20,000/- is otherwise excessive or he is not possessed of sufficient financial means to pay this maintenance. The claim of the plaintiff to get maintenance at this rate was refuted only on the ground that the plaintiff comes from the family with modest means and was not having the status entitling her to get maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The defendant was referring to the alleged status of plaintiff's paternal family. The status of the parents of the plaintiff is totally irrelevant consideration. After the marriage it is the status of the husband which is determinative of the quantum of maintenance to be given to the wife. After the marriage a girl adopts matrimonial home and gets attuned to the living standard of her husband. She is identified with the family of her husband. She acquires her husband's family name. If she has to suffer his miseries, she has right to enjoy his affluency also. Therefore, if the husband is wealthy and leading opulent life, his wife also has right to be the partner in his prosperity and live with same standards and equal dignity. It does to lie in the mouth of the husband, after separation of the spouses, to say that wife is no longer entitled to the standard in which she has been living with husband and that she should re-adopt the standard of her parental home. Lord Denning aptly observed in this context:
"Equality is the order of the day. In both directions. For both sexes. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" (Lord Denning 'The Due Process of Law, page 245).
6. Thus in such cases of maintenance of deserted wives coming to the court, the court is to apply the principles of equity. Equity means evenness, fairness and justice. The Court cannot be insensitive in such matters and leave the wife in penury after the husband has deserted her.
7. So long as husband is alive it is his duty to maintain his wife. During the existence of her husband the wife's right to be maintained is proclaimed and preserved under Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Once the relationship of husband and wife is established, the wife can get maintenance as a matter of course. It is only under Section 18(3) of the said Act that the obligation is completely extinguished. ( Smt. Gouri Gupta Chaudhry Vs. Tarani Gupta Chaudhury ). The onus is upon the husband to bring the case within the ambit of Section 18(3) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner right to get maintenance stands established.
8. In view of these pleadings, I prima facie believe the averments made by the plaintiff about the income of the defendant and fix interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The defendant is directed to pay this maintenance at the aforesaid rate w.e.f. February, 2001 when the present application was filed. Arrears of maintenance i.e. up to May, 2001 be paid within two months. The defendant shall also stated paying the maintenance for the future period i.e. starting from June, 2001 by the 10th of each month.
9. This application is dispose of.
Suit No. /2001.
10. Renotify on 14th August, 2001.